Modelling Methodologies in Support of Complex Systems of Systems Design and Integration: Example Applications

2,532 views

Published on

Conference Presentation at the Workshop on Systems and Concurrent Engineering for Space Applications, Geneva, October, 2010

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,532
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Modelling Methodologies in Support of Complex Systems of Systems Design and Integration: Example Applications

  1. 1. → Modelling Methodologies in Support of Complex Systems of Systems Design and Integration: Example Applications Daniele Gianni1, Joe Lewis-Bowen2, Niklas Lindman1, Joachim Fuchs1 1European Space Agency (NL) 2Vega Consulting (UK) daniele.gianni@esa.int ESA/TEC-SWM http://www.esa.int/TEC/Modelling_and_simulation/
  2. 2. 2 Outline • Background – System of Systems – Enterprise Architecting • Types of problems • ESA Architectural Framework • Example Applications: – Galileo-COSPAS/SARSAT Design and Integration – GMES
  3. 3. 3 Systems of Systems (SoS) (I) A possible definition: “Systems of systems are large scale integrated systems that are heterogeneous and independently operable on their own, but are networked together for a common goal” Ref: M. Jamshidi, Systems of Systems Engineering, Wiley, 2009
  4. 4. 4 SoS (II) Some criteria are commonly used to define SoS and distinguish them from large but monolithic systems: - Operational Independence of Elements: if the SoS is disassembled into its component systems, the component systems must be able to usefully operate independently - Managerial Independence of Elements: the component systems not only can operate idependently, they do operate independently - Evolutionary Development: the SoS does not appear fully formed, its development and existence is evolutionary with functions and purposes added, removed or modified - Emergent Behaviour: the system performs and carries out purposes that do not reside in any component system. The principal purposes of the SoS are fulfilled by these behaviours - Geographic Distribution: The geographic extent of the component systems is large. The components can readily exchange only information
  5. 5. 5 SoS (III) So a SoS is: – An assembly of systems that are functioning together • Even if they are not initially conceived to • Integrating systems at different levels of evolution (legacy and new ones) • Hence the importance of the definition of standards and interoperability criteria – When functioning together, those systems can implement capabilities that would not be available otherwise
  6. 6. 6 Enterprise Architecting A possible definition: “The process of rigorously describe an enterprise architecture to support decision making throughout a system (or SoS) life cycle” Including design, operation, maintenance and governance
  7. 7. 7 Types of Problems • In the design of new space-based services, we will more often rely on available assets, systems, and SoS • This will reduce the resources needed for the development of new space- based services, but will considerably increase the design complexity. For example, new design approaches will have to consider: – Integration of systems that are independently managed and owned (e.g. Identification of Open Interfaces between Galileo and COSPAS- SARSAT) – Governance of these systems, to guarantee operational status and SLAs that we might sign with customers (e.g. Responsiveness and Latency of Oil Spill Detection, Monitoring, and Forecasting in GMES) – Reduce SoS configuration sensitivity from composing systems, while reducing redundancies of capabilities implementations
  8. 8. 8 Introducing ESAAF • We introduce ESAAF as modelling methodology for supporting the decision making in SoS design and integration • ESAAF is based on established methodologies, such as MODAF and TOGAF, aiming to enhance on the following aspects: – Adding space domain specific concepts – Increasing detail of modelling, where/when needed – Improving technical (and logical) consistency – Enhancing model exploitation, including properties inference – Reducing visible complexity of the generic methodology – It is an on-going project – other details coming up soon
  9. 9. 9 ESAAF Levels of Definition e.g. Meta-Modeller, Process Modeller e.g. Programme Architect and Modeller e.g. Project Manager, Customer and Modeller
  10. 10. 10 Exploitation • Exploitation Tool – Enables stakeholders to access the information represented in the model – Allows model users to build scenarios of elements – Report against the scenario – Report against the full model – Web integration feasible in the future • Browsing patterns (ca 20): – Identified manual or automatic extraction of model properties (e.g. identification of open interfaces, etc.) • including inference of SoS properties using domain-specific knowledge
  11. 11. 11 Galileo • Upcoming European GNSS • Complex System (per se) • A base system for the implementation and provisioning of other Space-based services • Galileo will join SoS configurations • For example Galileo-COSPAS/SARSAT will be a SoS configuration aiming to implement global Search and Rescue (SAR) capabilities
  12. 12. 12 Galileo-COSPAS/SARSAT Open Interfaces Identification • Objective: to identify responsibilities in the definition and provisioning of interfaces • Process: – High level description of operational SAR scenario – Identification of roles and information exchange – Mapping of roles onto actual systems and SoS – Identification of systems interacting across stakeholder boundaries
  13. 13. 13 Galileo-COSPAS/SARSAT Operational Scenario Galileo-specific Return Link Objective: to identify responsibilities in the definition and provisioning of interfaces
  14. 14. 14 Operational Scenario: Roles Identification Galileo-specific Return Link Identification of operational roles within the scenario
  15. 15. 15 High Level Interactions amongst Roles Identification of roles and their information exchange in a SAR operation
  16. 16. 16 Detailed Interactions amongst Roles (SAR Activation) Exploded diagram of roles, identification of sub-roles, information exchange, and operational activities, in a SAR Activation Phase
  17. 17. 17 Detailed Interactions amongst Roles (SAR Operation) Exploded diagram of roles, identification of sub-roles, information exchanges, and operational activities, in a SAR Operation Phase
  18. 18. 18 Open Interfaces Identification (SAR Activation) Identification of Systems and SoS Configurations (aka Capability Configurations) implementing the sub-roles, in a SAR Activation Phase. Open interfaces are determined by interactions between two independently managed or owned systems.
  19. 19. 19 Open Interfaces Identification (SAR Operation) Identification of Systems and SoS Configurations (aka Capability Configurations) implementing the sub-roles, in a SAR Operation Phase. Open interfaces are determined by interactions between two independently managed or owned systems.
  20. 20. 20 GMES • European programme for the establishment of a European capacity for Earth Observation • Inherently a SoS, as it relies on the integration of available assets, systems, SoS
  21. 21. 21 GMES Model (Some) Objectives: • Identify dependency chains in the GMES governance • Support the evaluation of average latency time for Oil Spill Detection Service • Support the evaluation of average response time for Oil Spill Forecasting Service
  22. 22. 22 Governance for Oil Spill Detection Service
  23. 23. 23 Governance for Oil Spill Detection Service
  24. 24. 24 Oil Spill Detection Response Time
  25. 25. 25 Exploitation Tool: PDF Report Oil Spill Detection
  26. 26. 26 Exploitation Tool: PDF Report Detection and Monitoring Oil Spill Forecasting
  27. 27. 27 Conclusions • Supporting decision making for SoS design and integration is necessary to minimise the risk the SoS will perform unexpectedly • ESAAF is a new modelling methodology tailored to space SoS design and integration • Example application to Galileo-COSPAS/SARSAT and GMES – Overview of some model segments – Model exploitation • Ongoing: using ESAAF to support upcoming European Space Situational Awareness, with emphasis on data policy and governance • Upcoming future: design of ESAAF v2
  28. 28. 28 Q/A? Further questions: Daniele Gianni daniele.gianni@esa.int ESA/TEC-SWM http://www.esa.int/TEC/Modelling_and_simulation/
  29. 29. 29 Extra Slides
  30. 30. 30 ESAAF Process • ESAAF defines a methodology for – the specification of the methods, rationale, assumptions and principles of the analysis and design activities – the definition of the ESAAF governance (i.e. roles, actors, and actions needed to manage the ESAAF infrastructure)
  31. 31. 31 Strategic View ESAAF Metamodel Systems View Standards View Operational View The Systems View describes and interrelates systems and their interconnections and performance to the operational view. The Standards View describes the minimal set of rules governing the arrangement, interaction and interdependence of system parts or elements. The Operational View describes and interrelates the operational elements, tasks and activities and information flows required to accomplish mission operations The Strategic package contains the concepts and relationships needed for modelling the highest level aspects of an enterprise. In particular, it supports the description of the enterprise's vision and goals, and the capabilities that are needed to deliver this vision. Financial, Agreements, Risk, Availability, Programme, Technology Views
  32. 32. 32 Modelling • Currently based on ESAAF MagicDraw plugin • The governance tools can generate the plugin from ESAAF metamodel • Some of these tools base on standard metamodelling environments • If required, other plug-ins could be generated for other modelling tools, such as System Architect

×